Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
tradition_n church_n scripture_n universal_a 5,142 5 8.7208 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A46984 A letter from the vindicator of the Bishop of Condom to the author of a late discourse concerning the sacrament of Extreme unction Johnston, Joseph, d. 1723. 1687 (1687) Wing J869; ESTC R30476 5,681 6

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as he affirmed he did But what if he had Why truly then says this Discourser the Defender did not falsifie him No truly neither should I have accused him of it Seeing the Defender acknowledges that there was an Unction of the sick continued in the East and West for 800 years nay I may add seeing both He and this Discourser tho' they charge the Church with altering her Intentions yet cannot deny but there was an Unction practised in the East and Western Churches from Age to Age ever since the Apostles times notwithstanding the gifts of Miracles were ceased and seeing it is manifest that those Rituals of the first 800 years which the Defender says had a primary respect to Bodily Cures had also a respect to those of the Soul which is Primary in Dignity as ours have now to both and that it can be made out by the very nature of Tradition that it was morally impossible for such successive Innovations to be made as the Defender and the Discourser have imagined what madness would it be to reject a practice coming down by such an uninterrupted Tradition and a universal consent of particular Churches upon the Testimony of one man's affirming that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture But there is a second part of this Tale. I pass by says this Discourser your insinuation that he the Defender supposed the Vnction mentioned by St. James was practised by the Primitive Church for the first 800 years He said no such things nor supposed any such thing but only that for 800 years they esteemed St. James 's Vnction to belong primarily to Bodily Cures which they might do and yet in less than 800 years they might bring in an Vnction different from that of St. James tho' both of them were primarily designed for Bodily Cures Now really Sir if this was insinuated it was not without just grounds for seeing the Defender's endeavors were to maintain that this expression of St. James's was to be interpreted of Bodily Cures and back'd his Assertion with the ancient Liturgies of the Church and the public Practice of it for above 800 years which he affirmed were also for Bodily Cures and seeing he did not so much as hint at any alteration during all that time how could any one imagin but he supposed the Unction mentioned by St. James was practised till that time especially seeing he could not but foresee the many woful contradictions which necessarily follow such a pretended change as Chemniti●s invented and you have espoused after him But now we come to the second Tale Brother to the former and therefore a notable one too I told him that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as the Defender affirm'd he did 'T is true and I say it still a third time and shall make it evidently appear to any one that will weigh the Propositions The Defender affirm'd that Card. Cajetan freely confesses that this passage of St. James can belong to no other than Bodily Cures But says this Discourser the only pretence you have that the Cardinal did not positively say what the Defender affirmed him to have said is that the Defender did not give the Cardinal 's own words but what he conceived to be his sense Here Sir you are embarqu'd in the same Vessel with the Defender and espouse his dangers You affirm with him that the sense of that passage of Cardinal Cajetan's is a free confession that St. James's words could belong to no other than Bodily Cures Let us lay the Propositions together and see whether they be equivalent or no or whether yours be a necessary Inference from the other for if neither of these be I hope you will grant it to look something like what I call'd it The Cardinal's Proposition according to your own Translation is a Falsification It neither appears by the words nor by the Effect that he St. James speaks of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction but rather of the Unction which our Lord appointed in the Gospel to be used upon sick persons by his Disciples For c. The Defender's Proposition is Cardinal Cajetan freely confesses that these words of St. James Is any man sick c. can belong to no other than Bodily Cures Now Sir that these two Propositions Cardinal Cajetan acknowleges that Extreme Unction cannot be proved from that passage but rather an Unction for Bodily Cures and Cardinal Cajetan freely confesses that that passage can belong to no other but Bodily Cures are not equivalent I appeal to any one who can but understand a difference betwixt these two Propositions What you say does not prove the Assertion and What you say proves the contrary But it may be the one is a necessary Inference from the other for as the Defender says When two things only are in Controversie for the Cardinal absolutely to exclude the one and apply it to the other is in effect to confess that it could only belong in that Well but what if the Cardinal do not absolutely exclude the one but say this does not appear but rather that will you therefore infer positively therefore it can only belong to that I assure you Sir if you have no better premisses to prove your other Conclusions by than what you have for this tho' they may perplex the less Learned yet any one who knows what connexion there ought to be betwixt the Premisses and the Conclusion will deny your Consequences But to make this clear suppose I should tell you you cannot positively prove from that passage Go ye baptizing all Nations c. nor from any other in Scripture without the general Practice and Authority of the Church that Infants are to be baptized I suppose you would not deny me the Proposition But should I say that passage and all the other in Scripture concerning Baptism can belong to no other but to Adults I persuade my self you would not readily give me your assent And if this be not a parallel case with the other pray shew the difference I might here return your own Complement and tell you that I might have spared all this trouble because it is so clear that there is no need of words to make an honest man understand it and all the words in the world will signifie nothing if a man be not so honest as he should be But Sir it must be such another man as You and the Defender seem to be who reads the Cardinal's words and can find him to be so positive as you say he was But I do not think it proper to use so much Gall where the simplicity of the Dove ought to prevail especially seeing you tell us that they who are honest and wise will not so much consider who they are that break forth into the most vehement Exclamations I suppose you will give me leave to add clamorous Censures or bold Assertions as who they are that bring the clearest Proofs Thus Sir of the two Tales you lay to my charge the first is a meer Cavil and the other is plainly your own So that I have a just occasion given me from hence to admonish You and the Defender that if either of you undertake to vindicate him from those Calumnies Falsifications false Translations c. which I have so justly charged him with you do not make your selves more guilty by espousing their Defence For tho' I think I might have excused the Defender from a wilful intention to falsifie Cardinal Cajetan in his Exposition yet seeing both He and You have gone about to defend that which was so plainly a Falsification it is manifest that 't is You your selves have done the prejudice either to your own Honesty or Vnderstanding Pray take your choice for one at least belongs to you You seem to boast of a Talent the Defender has of Answering Books so quickly Much good may do him with it I envy him not but wish he would take more care to study what he says himself and to peruse the Collections that others bring him in that we may not hereafter be troubled with false Translations or so many things to so little purpose For my own part I thank God I have other Employments which I am sure are much preferable to this so that it is only spare minutes which are not many that I have to employ the rest are spent in a nearer Service to my Master And yet Sir I have so much Zeal for the Salvation of my Brethren that I will bestow some moments to peruse your Book and shew you if you have as you say a desire and will not let the prejudice of your Education hinder you from taking the means to be saved what reason the Council of Trent had to Anath●matize all those who deny the Sacrament of Extreme Unction and how little you have brought against the uninterrupted Practice of the Church ever since the Apostles times But this shall be the subject of another Letter from SIR Your Friend and Servant Decemb. 5. 1687. London Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel And are to be sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black-Fryers 1687.